You are here

Universal firearm background checks

Evidence Rating

Some Evidence

Health Factors

Decision Makers

Federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks of potential handgun purchasers’ criminal histories via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which includes fugitive status, court restraining orders, and some information regarding severe mental illness. States can also require unlicensed dealers (i.e., private sellers) to perform background checks and keep records of firearm sales via universal background checks. Universal checks are often adopted with other efforts to strengthen background checks such as expansions to other types of firearms, additional qualification criteria, and regulations that require licenses to purchase or own firearms (GLC).

Impact on Disparities

No impact on disparities likely

Implementation Examples

As of October 2015, thirteen states require universal background checks for all types of firearm sales and six states (Iowa, Michigan, Maryland, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania) require universal checks for handguns only (USA Firearm Training).

Most states prevent local governments from enacting gun laws via state preemption legislation (Grassroots Change); as of 2015, only seven states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York) allow local governments to enact gun laws.

Date Last Updated

Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.

Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.

Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.

Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.

Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.

Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results.